LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Shelf iSftLS. 0*9 

-,S8 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



. 



PRICE. lO CENTS. 



PROHIBITION IS POLITICS 



r ON: 

i PROHIBITION TO VA] MADE A POLITICAL QUES- 
TIi >V ! IF SO, WITH WHAT LIMITATIONS ! 



SAMUEL T SPEAK, D.D., of the Xew York Independent. 
:;;mativk: I. K. FUXK. D.D., of the Homiletic Review. 









THE YOICE EXTRA.-N0. IV. 



August, 1885. 



[Published Quarts 



II \K A \VA(.\Al,I.s. r i and 12 Dey Street, New York. 






GEORGE ELIOT'S POETRY 

AND OTHER STUDIES. 

BY ROSE ELIZABETH CLEVELAND. 



PRICE, CLOTH, $1.50. 



This is Miss Cleveland's maiden book, upon which she has spent much time, care and 
labor. It was written previous to President Cleveland's accession to the Presidency Beau- 
tifully bound. 



CONTEBTTS : George Eliot's Poetry; Reciprocity; Altruistic Faith; 

History; Studies in the Middle Ages; A Series of Historical 

Essays; Old Rome and New France; Charlemagne; 

The Monastery; Chivalry; Joan of Are. 



GEORGE PARSONS LATHEOP says : 

"Miss Cleveland's Essays seem to me valuable for their quality of insight and earnest feeling I 
am greatly pleased by her sincere, womanly tone, and think that her presentation of historical episodes 
is calculated to arouse the imagination and impress readers vividly." 
R. H. STODDARD IN THE NEW YORK WORLD says : 

" Miss Cleveland's ideas are high, and her self-respect is great. This volume shows that she can be 
what few women are-critical, and that she is able to form an independent opinion. . . Miss Cleve 
land's analysis of the verse of George Eliot in 'The Spanish Gypsy,' and her comparison of that over- 
rated and prosy production with Aurora Leigh proves that she possesses the true critical faculty 
Miss Cleveland considers curiously the verse of George Eliot, and wherein it comes short of Mrs" 
Browning's verse. Is it in her prosody ? It is as faultless as Pope's. There is never a syllable too much 
or too little in her metres. The metre of Mrs. Browning is often slovenly, and her rhymes always 
poetry and music, which that of George Eliot always lacks. . . . Miss Cleveland reaches what so few 
writers attain — style." 

CHARLES A. DANA, EDITOR NEW YORK SUN says : 

"Miss Cleveland's Uterary style is characterized by vigor of expression, abundance of imagery and 
a certain rythmic quality that makes passages here and there read almost like blank verse Although 
the essays are critical and expository rather than imaginative,' her frequent use of figurative language 
often in metaphors original in conception, elaborately wrought out, shows the power and scope of a 
fancy which a somewhat severe intellectual habit has not wholly restrained. The President's sister as 
we see her in these essays, represents a type of the American woman very interesting to study She 
has read a good deal, and her active intellect has attacked many of the unsolved problems In the phi- 
losophy of life. The most stupendous subjects of thought or speculation do not terrify her. She stands 
npm the presence of the wisdom of ullages with quite as much self-possession as a clever and coura- ' 
geous Yankee school-mistress might be expected to display if confronted by the whole French Academy 
Intellectually she is something of an ascetic, something of a mystic, something of an exaUee. She 
has no patience with the modern pessimists. She discusses with equal readiness the teachings of Gau- 
tama, Carlyle, Mr. Hume and Mahomet. The problems of ethics, the disputed points of aesthetics 
and the conundrums of history she grapples with eagerness; and whether we find her sharply chal- 
lenging the opinions of a leading infidel or subjecting to critical analysis the emotional side of Joan 
of Arc's character, we find her equally positive, aggressive, and interesting." 
THE NEW YORK JOURNAL OF COMMERCE says : 

"Those who were privileged to read the proof-sheets of Miss Cleveland's book and praised it in 
advance, did not overrate its excellent qualities. In its entirety it is a fresh, original work. The inter- 
esting fact that Miss Cleveland is sister of the President and mistress of the White House will, of course 
pique public curiosity and give 'George Eliot's Poetry and Other Studies ' a wide circulation. But she 
does not and need not ask any favors on account of her position. Her essays can stand on their native 
merit. She has an active brain and a generous, sympathetic heart. She thinks for herself and has the 
courage of her opinions. Her style is sententious to a degree rare in this age of effusiveness. It would 
be hard to find a superfluous word in her crisp, antithetical sentences. Her diction is choice, her fancy 
is hvely, her intense earnestness is at times relieved by gleams of humor ; and she knows how to make 
and introduce quotations. The latter indicate an extensive range of reading and familiarity with the 



OUGHT rRonrBrrio\ TO be made a political QUESTION ? IF so, 

WITH WHAT LIMITATIONS? 

No. I. 

J'.v S\\rrr.i. T. Steak, P. D. 

The importation, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating liquors, 
when considered commercially, Bupply the demand created by their 
consumption ; and through tins consumption, and not otherwise, the 
well known evils resulting from the liquor business make their appear- 
ance. These evils arise only when the consumption is that of a 
common beverage, frequently repeated, by the same persons, in con- 
siderable quantities, and for a considerable period, so as to form tbe 
habit of such use. Not every use of these liquors, as a beverage, 
comes within this description. Some people use them so moderately 
that, if such were the practice of all liquor drinkers, there would be 
no occasion for any special legislation on the subject. It is not true 
"that all such drinkers are drunkards, or that tbey in tbe end become 
such ; and yet it is true that, in respect to a large number of persons, 
liquor drinking becomes a confirmed and most injurious habit, and that 
from this source arise evils of awful dimensions. 

It is this fact, and this only, that creates the necessity for remedial 
restraint, with a view to lessen or wholly remove these evils. The 
history of legislation in this country shows that, for the purpose of 
such restraint, special laws have, from time to time, been enacted by 
most if not all of the States of the Union, and that these laws were 
intended to be a tax upon the liquor business, generally imposed in the 
form of a license fee. All such laws have assumed the right of these 
States to regulate and control the action of the inhabitants thereof, to 
any extent demanded by the public good, subject to the limitation of 
certain inalienable rights belonging to individual persons, of which 
the ri^ht to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors is not one, and 
Bubject to the further limitation of vested rights of property, of which 
no one can be deprived " without due process of law." (Bartemeyer 
v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 120.) 

Prohibition, considered as an application of this legal principle, de- 
clares that there shall be no manufacture or sale of intoxicating 
liquors, except under circumstances and for purposes carefully speci- 
fied. The design is to keep these liquors out of the general market, 
and to stop their consumption as a beverage by cutting off the supply. 
What is called the license system excludes the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, except by designated persons who, in distinction from the 
great mass of the people, are permitted to pursue the business under 
the regulations and restrictions of law. The two systems do not differ 
in kind, or in the evil had in view, but only in the degree of their re- 



striction. Both are meant to be remedial, and legal restraint is alike 
the object of both. 

Theoretically considered, Prohibition is the high-water mark of the 
idea. But if it is not practicable in a given State, and the license 
system is practicable, then the latter, though less restrictive than the 
former, is, in such a state of facts, practically the better system, cer- 
tainly better than no restraint by law. Those who denounce every 
form of the license system, and will have Prohibition or nothing, make 
a grave mistake. "What they denounce is much better than nothing, 
since it imposes some restraint upon the liquor business, and makes the 
evils less than they otherwise would be. 

Let us concede to Prohibition all that its most enthusiastic friends 
claim for it, and that it should be established by law when and where 
this can be done ; and a very important question then arises, not as to 
the end to be sought, but as to the way of seeking it. Shall a distinct 
and separate Political Party be organized in the several States, and al- 
so in the nation, and shall distinct and separate candidates be nomi- 
nated by that party for National and State offices, on the basis of Pro- 
hibition as the leading if not the exclusive issue to be submitted to the 
votes of the people, certainly as the controlling reason for the exist- 
ence of such a party ? Some Prohibitionists answer this question in 
the affirmative. 

And, in order to judge as to the wisdom of this answer, it may be 
well in the outset to note the following facts : — 1. That this country 
has never had at the same time more than two great political parties, 
either in the nation or in the several States, and that these parties, 
either with or without a change of their respective titles, have per- 
petuated themselves down to the present time. 2. That the great 
mass of the A r oters have uniformly been divided between these two 
parties. 3. That, for a rule, the party that has controlled the General 
Government has also controlled the majority of the State governments, 
and that in this respect national and State politics have been identi- 
fied. 5. That comparatively small political parties have, neverthe- 
less, appeared from time to time, in opposition to one or the other or 
both of the great parties, without displacing either, and without ob- 
taining control of the affairs of government, and that these parties 
have not lived longer in some cases than a single election, and that, 
whatever has been their duration, they have in the end disappeared 
altogether, being swallowed up and lost in one or both of the two great 
political parties of the country. 

The task of creating an absolutely new political party that will, 
in the presence of the parties already existing, perpetuate itself and 
obtain control of the Government, or, to any considerable extent, of 
the State governments, is not, in the light of these facts, so easy as 
eorne people imagine. It has never succeeded, even once, in the whole 



</ 



^history of this Government. The Republican party of to-day is not an 
example of such creation. This party, formally organized in 1856, 
was not a now party contending for the mastery against two other 
parties in the field, and finally conquering both, but was simply the 
eld Whig party tinder a new name, with elements of strength derived 
from the Liberty party and also the Democratic party, while some of 
the Whig elements, especially in the Southern States, went into the 
latter party. The "Whig party gave place to the Republican party 
and was merged into it, and, with added elements, took a new name, 
Such are the facts in the case. 

One need not look far to see why it is so difficult to create and per- 
petuate an absolutely new political party, and place it in power. 
There is practically no room for it, and no general demand for it. 
The ideas of the few, as compared with those of the many, make no 
such demand. The majority of the people can always get all they 
want, through one or the other of the existing parties, by simply vot- 
ing it into power. These parties are constantly watching public senti- 
ment, and, from time to time, adopting new principles or measures in 
accordance with its supposed demands. Their plan is not to lag be- 
hind this sentiment or go contrary to it ; and neither proposes to dis- 
band or commit suicide, in order to make room for a third party. It 
is the constant study of both to keep on good terms with the majority 
of the voters ; and the people can always get all the legislation they 
want through either of them. 

How then is a third party, as a distinct and separate organization, to 
crowd itself into power, in the presence of the two great parties that al- 
ready have the field, either of which stands ready to respond to the 
demands of public sentiment, and both of which are seeking to in- 
terpret these demands? This is a question which those who are so 
ready to extemporize new political parties, simply to suit their ideas, 
are not apt thoughtfully to consider. They practically forget that 
the majority of the people, speaking through the ballot-box, rule in 
this country, and that this majority has no occasion for a third party, 
and will not use it. Two parties are enough for all practical pur- 
poses, and a third party is just one too many. 

The prospects of Prohibition, by the agency of a third political 
party organized for this special purpose, do not, in the light of these 
general facts, appear very promising. Such a party can give no legal 
expression to its views until it gets itself into power, and this it cannot 
do until a majority of the voters shall adopt its views ; and when, if 
ever, this becomes a fact, the party will be wholly unnecessary to at- 
tain the result. Let public sentiment move up to the mark of Pro- 
hibition, so as to give signs that this is or is soon to be the choice and 
purpose of the people ; and there will be no difficulty in realizing the 
end through an existing party, without any new organization. What 



is wanted is not a new party, but a prevalent, popular opinion in 
favor of Prohibition ; and until this is gained, political Prohibition is 
powerless to attain the end. 

It may, however, be said that a third party, though for the pres- 
ent powerless, is, nevertheless, the shortest and surest way to create 
the necessary popular opinion in favor of Prohibition. I do not re- 
gard this as a correct view, but, on the contrary, believe that Prohibi- 
tionists will sooner and more certainly gain their end by identifying 
themselves with the political party that, by reason of its character and 
constituent elements, is most likely to sympathize with their views, 
and from which, by co-operating with it and helping to place it in 
power, they can most hopefully expect the necessary legislation on 
this subject. Let them work within the lines of such a party and 
make themselves part and parcel of it ; let them participate in its 
nominating conventions and support the candidates thereof ; let them 
attend its primary meetings ; let them seek to educate it up to the 
standard of their ideas ; let them agitate the question of Prohibition 
as much as they please ; let them do their utmost to enlighten the 
popular mind as to the merits of their cause ; and if by thus acting 
with and within such a party, they can convert neither the party nor 
public sentiment to the adoption of their views, how can they hope to 
succeed by setting up a third party ? Standing up to be counted, as 
a comparatively small minority, will not give them Prohibition, or in- 
crease their power to attain it, or add to the force of their argument, 
or change public opinion in their favor. The effect will rather be to 
disclose their own weakness and the hopelessness of their task by this 
mode of action. 

But may not Prohibitionists, though gaining no victory for them- 
selves, nevertheless, by taking a course that defeats an existing party, 
so discipline and punish that party by its defeat as to compel its ac- 
ceptance of their views, as the only condition upon which it can have 
their support ? The party to which such an argument is addressed, 
will always answer this question in the negative whenever compliance 
with the condition named will bring to it greater losses than gains. 
No party will ever seek the votes of Prohibitionists upon a condition 
that, in its judgment, involves the loss of a larger number of votes. 
Every party will take the hazard of being defeated by the former, 
rather than that of being defeated by the latter. The argument in 
terrorem, however plausible it may seem to Prohibitionists, will not 
work, unless they are so numerous that they can by their own strength 
make their cause victorious ; and if this be the fact, then they do not 
need to use the argument at all, since one or both of the existing 
parties will, without the argument, be certain to adjust their action to 
the fact. There is no difficulty about the success of Prohibition, with- 
out a third party, whenever and wherever such a fact exists. 



What then shall be done when both of the great parties are equally 
' opposed to Prohibition and equally refuse to adopt it ? This question 
virtually concedes that the predominant Bentiment of the people is 
against Prohibition. If this were not the fact, the attitude of the ex- 
isting parties would not be against it. The organization of a third 
party on the basis of Prohibition is not, so Long as this fact remains, 
going to turn a powerless minority into a successful majority. The 
candidates of such a party will not be elected ; and Prohibitionists 
will not thereby acquire any additional power more strongly to influ- 
ence the public mind than they might otherwise have done. They 
will not be able ;>> preach any better, or reason any better, or better 
do anything to change the thoughts of the people, and make their 
cause triumphant They cannot vote themselves into power until they 
get the necessary popular opinion on their side ; and there is nothing 
in the mere organization of a third party to secure this result. The 
opinion being given, such a party is not needed ; and, without it, the 
party would be politically powerless. 

The wise course for Prohibitionic-ts, in the case supposed, is to ac- 
cept the situation as it is, and then, by earnest efforts, seek to arouse 
public attention to the enormous evils connected with the liquor busi- 
1 to the urgent necessity of stringent legislation to abate these 
evils. Here is an ample field for the exercise of their best powers in 
the way of argument and persuasion ; and if they are successful in 
leading the people generally to adopt their views, the end they desire 
will be gained without organizing a third party for that purpose. The 
existing political parties, assumed to be opposed to Prohibition, will, 
upon this supposition, change their attitude ; and either, if placed in 
power, will give to the principle the sanction and force of law. Xo 
new party is needed when public sentiment demands a prohibitory 
law, and, in the absence of such a sentiment, no new party can secure 
tin- result. 

The existing public sentiment, whether right or wrong, will, in this 
country, be practically the law on this subject ; and no law, in ad- 
vance of it or against it, can be effective as a corrective or reform- 
ing remedy. No political party can get into power, or, if in power, 
h>ng stay then-, against public sentiment. The many, in the matter of 
making or unmaking law, will have their own way, whether the few 
like it or not. The latter may and should do what they can to change 
the thoughts of the many, if believing them to be wrong; but theycan- 
blisb Prohibition, and no party can establish it, against the 
judgment of the many. 

thing may be learned on this subject from the strategy of 
what is called the rum power. That power never gets up a third 
party, never has a separate and independent ticket as the rum ticket. 
What it does is to ally itself with one of the existing parties, and, by 



voting with it, to strengthen that party, and thereby control its ac- 
tion, so as to prevent the legislation it does not desire, and secure that 
-which it does desire. This is good strategy in the pursuit of a bad 
end ; and I am of opinion that the friends of restrictive legislation 
can do no better than to imitate this strategy in the pursuit of a good 
end. The fact that the children of this world are sometimes wiser 
than the children of light is no credit to the latter, and is the reason 
why the former often succeed when the latter fail. 

It is well to remember that Prohibitionists, by organizing a third 
party, at once dissolve all their relations to the other two parties, ex- 
cept as an opposing and disturbing element, and that they may in this 
Tray do positive damage to the real interests of the temperance cause. 
They may get votes from one of these parties, the one most favorable 
to their cause, and which they would otherwise have supported, and 
in this way give victory to the other party, the one least favorable to 
their catise and most in alliance -with the liquor interest, and in this 
sense the rum party. This surely is not a victory for Prohibition, but 
rather defeat. The party most likely to co-operate with them,J[f sup- 
ported by them, is defeated ; and the party least likely to act -with 
them, and supported by the liquor interest, is successful, and they 
have contributed to that success. This is defeat to their cause, and in 
part by their own hands, and nothing else. It is well known that the 
Democratic party, in the recent election, calculated upon the Prohibi- 
tion votes to be drawn from the Republican party, as one ground for 
the hope of success. Was this party in favor of Prohibition ? Not 
at all. It simply wanted to use Prohibitionists for its own political 
purposes. Its hostility to their theory is without any disguise. 

Prohibition, so far as it has won any victories, has done so, not 
through the organization of a third party, but by co-operation with 
an existing party. This certainly was the fact in Maine. The Pro- 
hibition amendment in Iowa succeeded as a Republican measure, and 
the Prohibition laws of that State were enacted by a Republican 
legislature. The same fact meets us when we turn to Kansas. The 
truth is that a distinct and separate Prohibition party has not yet 
won a single victory for its own cause, and that all the victories actually 
won have been gained by the agency and support of an existing party, 
with which the advocates of restrictive legislation had the good sense 
to co-operate, thus working with the party and through it, and not 
outside of it or against it. "WTiat has been done in this way can in 
the same way be done elsewhere, if at all, and much sooner and more 
easily than it can be done by the organization of a third party. 

If, moreover, this third party enlarges the area of its principles be- 
yond the single one of Prohibition, so as to embrace questions also 
embraced by one or both of the two great parties of the country, then, 
in relation to these questions, there is no occasion for the existence of 



the party, since in respect to them the people can just as well and 
even better secure all they desire without it, and arc not likely to at- 
tach themselves to it for this purpose. If, for example, they want to 
establish woiuans' BUffrage, or repeal the anti-Chinese law, or maintain 
a protective tariff, they do not need a third party to attain any one or 
all of these ends. A Prohibition party is not likely to attract voters 
from either of the other parties by broadening its principles beyond 
the single one which constitutes the only occasion for its existence ; 
and it is quite likely in this way to raise new difficulties with voters. 

If, on the other hand, this party confines itself to the one principle 
which is the only reason for its organisation, and, consequently, ex- 
cludes all other political ends, then the basis of its action is plainly 
too limited to give any hope of ultimate success. He who supposes 
that a majority of the people, already having two great parties through 
either of which they can make their will effective on all questions that 
concern the public welfare, will attach themselves to a party of such 
narrow dimensions in what it proposes, gives full proof that he has 
some things yet to learn. There are other great interests, besides the 
one involved in Prohibition, which the people will and must consider 
in easting their votes. 

The result then is that a distinct Prohibition party, if, in the pres- 
ence of the other two parties, flinging to the breeze a flag broader than 
the one principle which calls for its existence, or if confining itself ex- 
clusively to that principle, really has no prospect of getting the ma- 
jority of the voters on its side and electing its candidates, and thus en- 
abling itself to realize its own idea. The final success of such a party 
through its own adherents is not among the probabilities of the future. 
The probabilities are that it will run a comparatively short race, and 
at last take its place among defunct political parties. 

The correctness of this view is confirmed by the fact, not only that 
the overwhelming mass of the voters in this country have hitherto de- 
clined to attach themselves to such a party, but also that the party has 
not by any means secured the votes of all who believe in the principle 
of Prohibition, or of that large body of voters who do not believe in this 
principle, and do believe in the wisdom and utility of the license 
system. The elections in this country show this fact, and, in showing 
it, show the practical judgment of the people. Prohibitionists may 
scout and denounce the popular judgment as indicated by the ballot- 
box ; but this will not affect that judgment, or alter the verdict ren- 
dered thereby, or change a minority into a majority. Every voter has 
the right to vote as he thinks best. The way in which the majority 
of the people vote tells the story as to what they think ; and if we 
test political Prohibition by this standard, the prospect of its final 
success is very remote. The principle may succeed; but I do not be- 
lieve that it will succeed by a separate party movement. 



The difficulties are not removed or lessened, but rather increased, 
when it is proposed to make a Prohibition party National in the scope 
of its action. One of the things to be done by such a party, in order 
to realize its own idea, is, once in every four years, to nominate can- 
didates for President and Vice-President respectively, and also to 
nominate Presidential electors who, if chosen by the people, will vote 
for these candidates. The chance of success, by setting up this 
electoral machinery, in the presence of the two great parties of the 
country, amounts simply to nothing at all; and if such a party could 
elect its candidates for President and Vice-President, neither of these 
officers could establish Prohibition over a single foot of the territory 
of the United States. 

Another thing to be done by a National Prohibition party is, once 
in every two years, to nominate and elect, from the several States, 
candidates for membership in the House of Representatives, and to do 
so to an extent that will give it the majority in this house. The same 
party must be numerically strong enough in the States to control the 
action of the majority of the State legislatures, and thus secure a ma- 
jority in the Senate of the United States. In a word, it must, by the 
election of its candidates, either directly or indirectly, obtain control 
of both Houses of Congress. A condition of public sentiment, in the 
several States, rendering all this possible, would entirely supersede 
the necessity for the party, so far as these States are concerned, since 
the end could and would be gained by State action; and if such a 
condition did not exist, then the end could not be gained by such a 
party. The tug of war on this subject is to supply the necessary pub- 
lic sentiment; and this is not to be done, on a scale adequate to the 
result, by the organization of a National Prohibition party. Such a 
party may by its action defeat one party and give victory to another; 
but this will convert neither to the adoption of its principles, so long 
as such adoption will cost more in votes than it will gain. 

If, moreover, we suppose this party to become strong enough to 
control both Houses of Congress, it would then be confronted with the 
fact that Congress has no power to establish Prohibition within the 
territorial domain of the States. The utmost that Congress can do is 
to legislate on this subject in the District of Columbia, in the Terri- 
tories of the United States, and in places used for forts, magazines, 
arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings belonging to the 
general government, and to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, 
and commerce with the Indian tribes, including commerce in intoxi- 
cating liquors. Congress, as the Constitution now is, has no power to 
prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the several 
States, any more than it has to prohibit the manufacture and sale of 
bread in these States. It may, for the purpose of raising a revenue, 
impose a tax on the liquor business; but this, upon the very face of 



the case, would not be Prohibition, To impose a tax so heavy as t«> 
make it absolutely prohibitory would W to defeat the constitutional 
jand of the tax, and, without any warrant in the Constitution, to 

suppress a business allowed by State authority. 

Far the greater part of the evil to be removed e\i<ts in the States, 
ami henee beyond the legislative power of Congress. And it' the pub- 

lie sentiment in the States were sueh as to seeure a majority of the 
members of both Houses of Congress favorable to Prohibition, then, 
as already remarked, this sentiment would he abundantly able to 
establish Prohibition in the States by State action, without any Legis- 
lation on the part of Congress, even it' we suppose it true, as it is not, 
that Congress has power to enact a prohibitory law to operate in these 
States. 

The only way in which Congress can be put in possession of such a 
power is by an amendment to the Constitution, giving it the power. 
If political Prohibitionists propose to secure this result, then they must 
elect a Congress that will by a two-thirds majority submit such an 
amendment to the legislatures of the several States, and must also 
gain such control over the State legislatures that three-fourths of them 
will ratify the amendment; or, if they do not adopt this method, then 
they must get two-thirds of the legislatures of the several States to ask 
Congress to call a Federal Convention to propose the amendment, and 
then get this Convention to adopt it, and then secure its ratification 
by conventions in three-fourths of the States. Is there any prospect 
that an effort to gain the result in cither of these ways would be suc- 
cessful ? Absolutely none whatever. 

If the people of the several States were universally in favor of Pro- 
hibition they could and would establish it by State authority in these 
States, and would not seek to do it by Federal authority. To establish 
it by the latter authority would be to change the character of the 
General Government, and also that of the State governments, as much 
so as if Congress were authorized to pass laws in respect to all the 
rights of property in the several States, or in respect to all crimes com- 
mitted in these States, or in respect to any other subject that is now 
properly regarded as a matter to be regulated by State authority. 
Whether intoxicating liquors shall be manufactured and sold in a 
given State is a question for that State to determine ; and it cannot 
be determined by Congress without working a fundamental change in 
our system of Government. He who thinks that the requisite majority 
can ever be persuaded to sanction such a change in the " supreme law 
of the land," has passed beyond the reach of reason; and the attempt 
to reason with him would be labor lost. 

These considerations show that the difficulties of the problem are 
not lessened or simplified, but rather increased, when it is proposed 
to create and perpetuate a Prohibition party that shall be national in 



10 

the scope of its action. The effort, however persistently made, can 
result in nothing but its own failure. Prohibition, as a third party 
movement, should not, at the very utmost, pass beyond the sphere of 
State politics; and, even here, the chances of its success are reduced 
to a minimum quantity. The conditions upon which it can succeed 
entirely dispense with its necessity as the means of that success. 
These conditions being given, the movement is not needed ; and if not 
given, it is a failure. 

I have, in this argument, purposely omitted to consider the question 
whether Prohibition can, in this country, be put into practice to such 
an extent that, by removing the facility for the use of intoxicating 
drinks, it would wholly or mainly remove the evils resulting there- 
from. My object has been to show that, if this question be answered 
in the affirmative, the organization of a third party to attain the end, 
whether in National or State politics, is not a wise mode of action. 
Whether such a party shall be organized and supported or not is not at 
all a question of principle, but simply one of ways and means. I have 
never acted with any such party, and I do not expect to do so. I do 
not believe in its practical wisdom with reference to the end sought. 

The political Prohibitionists, who form but a small fraction of the 
real friends of temperance in this country, have not, in my judgment, 
advanced their cause at all by their course at the recent election. 
They have indirectly helped the Democratic party into power, and, in 
so doing, they have done the very thing which the liquor interest de- 
sired to have done. The triumph of this party is not, in the light of 
its well known antecedents, to be regarded as a victory for Prohibi- 
tion. Nor is the defeat of the Republican party, in part by the Pro- 
hibitionists, to be reckoned as such a victory. This party is not like- 
ly to be converted to Prohibition by any such process, especially when 
the conversion would be sure to secure its defeat. The political Pro- 
hibitionists are to-day a very small minority of the whole people of 
the United States, and a- small minority of the whole people in each of 
the States; and I do not believe that their policy of organizing a third 
party will ever make them anything else. The reasons for this opin- 
ion I have stated in the preceding argument. 



SYMPOSIUM ON PROHIBITION". 
OUGHT FROHTBITIOX TO BE MADE A POLITICAL QUESTION? IF SO, 
WITH WHAT LIMITATIONS ? 

NO. II. 

By I. K. Fink, D.D. 

Tin- Rev. Or. Spear, in the able paper with which he opened this 
Symposium, justly observes that there is room in the country for but 
two great parties. The advocates of the National Prohibition party 
fully recognize this truth, and fully expect that their party will be one 
of the two. They believe it essential and wholly practicable to so 
push prohibition into politics as to make it the dominating political 
issue, until the liquor traffic is brought under control. Those who 
think this policy a wise one rest their belief chiefly on the following 
propositions : 

1. The liquor traffic is a stupendous injury to society and to our 
Government, and is a portentous and continuous menace to both ; res- 
ponsible, according to Chief Justice Noah Davis,* for eighty per 
cent, of all crime ; according to Premier Gladstone, for the infliction 
of more harm on man " than the three great historic scourges, war, 
famine and pestilence, combined;" according to the late eminent phy- 
sician, Dr. Willard Parker, f for 35 per cent, of lunacy, 45 percent, of 
idiocy, 75 to 00 per cent, of pauperism, and 10 per cent, of deaths ; 
according to the New York Tribune, "this traffic lies at the centre of all 
political and social mischief, it paralyzes energies in every direction, 
it neutralizes educational agencies, it silences the voice of religion, it 
baffles penal reform, it obstructs political reform; " according to Lord 
Chief Justice Coleridge, so intimately connected is the traffic with 
crime in England — and the same is certainly true in almost equal degree 
in America — "If we could make England sober we would shut up nine- 
tenths of her prisons;" and according to the London Times, it is an 
evil of such vast and growing magnitude that " it may crush and ruin 
us all." Hence it is a question of importance sufficient to be the dom- 

* H.jsaurnc Revtew. Jan. >885, p. 25. 

t Preface to Richardson's "Ten Lectures on Alcohol," p. 10. 



12 

mating and dividing issue in politics — other questions, however im- 
portant, to take, for the time being, subordinate places; for the coun- 
try settles only one great question at a time; and it is the domi- 
nating issue, not the subordinate ones, which, in a breaking-up of par- 
ties, exerts the determining influence in the recrystallization of voters. 
Other questions which have divided parties, as that of the National 
Bank and that of tariff, are, in comparison with the liquor question, 
of little moment; even the question of slavery, which crystallized the 
voters into two great opposing parties in 1856 and 1860, is dwarfed by 
this question. Drink is now reducing millions of negroes and whites 
to a far worse slavery than that which Lincoln's proclamation ended. 
Says Canon Farrar: " Important as great questions in English politics 
may be, such as the franchise and the land laws, they are matters abso- 
lutely infinitesimal compared with the urgency of the necessity of con- 
trolling and limiting with a strong hand this drink question." 

2. The methods employed to stay this evil have proved insufficient. 
These methods have failed not only to bring this monstrum horren- 
dum under control, but have proven wholly inadequate during these 
past thirty years, to prevent its constant and rapid increase, until now 
it has attained most alarming proportions, often defeating and electing 
candidates in municipal, state and national elections, and dictating 
political policies to both parties. Effort to turn back or even check 
the incoming tide of public opinion in favor of a National Prohibition 
party is labor lost, unless he who undertakes it clearly sets forth a 
remedy which will be manifestly adequate to meet the portentous and 
imminent danger against which this party is organized. It is to be re- 
gretted that the Rev. Dr. Spear, in his paper, did not think it worth 
while to suggest an adequate substitute for the one proposed by pol- 
itical prohibitionists. 

3. License, low or high, is not an adequate substitute. License is 
greatly responsible for the present immense proportions of this evil. 
With the masses the knowledge that an evil is under the ban of the 
law is restraining and educative in a very high degree. Whatever 
may be the subtleties of our theories touching license, and the explan- 
ations which justify it with metaphysicians and philosophic statesmen, 
with the masses it comes within the scope of this logic : that which 
the law permits is right, that which the law forbids is wrong. Rev. 
Dr. Curry says license is " partial prohibition ; " with the masses it is 
partial permission. As indulgences in the middle ages, license has 
debauched the public conscience. Houses of ill-fame are licensed 
in Paris, and bastards are nearly as numerous as children born in 
wedlock, nearly fifty per cent, of all births being bastards.* Dr. Her- 
rick Johnson, after witnessing the effects of the high license law in 
Chicago, denounces the law as " a sham and a delusion," and Hon. John 

* Von Oettingen's ''Moral Statistic," 3rd ed., 1882. Bibliotheca Sacra for Jan. 1885. 



13 

1>. Finch, to whom is attributed the suggestion for the high license law 
of Nebraska, the first in this country, regretfully says, "It was the 
greatest-mistake ol my life." The resolution of the Nevada Liquor- 
Dealers' Association voices a sentiment which licenses everlastingly 
tend to create. They say : 

Dg a< onr business is licensed by the United States, State 
and County, we cousider it perfectly legitimate and honorable, and do not think 
we ileserve the censure which is constantly being heaped upon us." 

This logic is irresistible with the people. It is largely responsible 
for that undertow which for these many years, in spite of all our efforts, 
has been sweeping us farther and farther to sea. The editors of Tlie 
Voice sent to all the mayors of Illinois questions regarding the effect 
of the high license law in that State. They have received Id an- 
swers: 47 of these declare that the effect has been to decrease pro- 
hibition sentiment, 14 notice no change, and only IS think that the 
law has tended to increase prohibition sentiment. So it appears that 
high license is actually a step from, instead of toward, prohibition. In 
a letter just to hand Dr. Ilerrick Johnson confirms this conclusion. 

4. Local prohibition, whether by town, county or State, is necessarily 
defective, inasmuch as it cannot prevent the introduction of liquor 
from adjoining counties or states; it can prevent the manufacture, 
but cannot protect itself against inter-state commerce, nor is it prac- 
ticable for it to do so. This defect can be remedied only by National 
prohibition, and this can be secured only through an amendment to 
the Federal Constitution. And this would greatly simplify the work 

y to suppress the liquor traffic. The government has already 
at hand the machinery which could, if proper authority is given, ac- 
complish the work. The Internal Revenue system, which now places 
an officer in every brewery and distillery in the land to prevent the 
manufacture of "crooked " whiskey, could close, if so ordered, all brew- 
eries and distilleries; and the present Custom House machinery could 
take care of all importations from abroad. The government, with 
machinery similar to that with which it prevents the manufacture of 
" crooked " whiskey and the importation of smuggled goods, could 
prevent the manufacture and importation of liquor. This method 
of procedure would give prohibition a tremendous advantage in many 
ways. 

5. So strong has the liquor power become with its enormous capital 
and its ramifications, and so thoroughly organized is it as a political 
power, that it is impossible to secure the rigid enforcement of prohibi- 
tory law by the dominant party, as parties are now constituted, 
even though the law is parsed by a majority vote of the people 
(in Maine the vote was, last September, three to one in its favor, 
and yet, on the testimony of General Neal Dow, the dominant 
party most reluctantly enforces the law, because of threats of the 



:± 



Wational Liquor Association against the party in doubtful States); 
the liquor power is able to defeat either party almost at its will, 
although it is greatly in the minority That the minority can 
rule, Dr. Spear easily demonstrates (?) impossible; but an ounce of 
a ton of logic The liquor power has great advantages 
mts of strength, and these compensate for lack of votes; 
nited supply of money, and this counts for very much; it 
1 with conscientious scruples in the using of money to 
corrupt executive officers and legislators, and in this way often thwarts 
the will of the people. Then it is the business interest of liquor 
men to defeat the law, and hence they can be counted on to be all at 
it and alttays at it, and having the negative result to secure, the non- - 
enforcement of the law, it is not strange, as the parties are now or- 
ganized, that these men should come off victors almost everv time, and 
this notwithstanding keen logical demonstrations that minorities can- 



in othei 

:::.-■.; :.: 

[-7 " ~~ 



>r question to the front as the dominating 



rum power. The majorit 



eonmct comes, to 
defeated when sul 



ige), will tha 
now. 



the March number of the Methodist Bemem 9 



M= ----_-•-•-■, ----_ ~ » « ~- ;; 

;ai :: is 



15 

ds ft disturbing force, but quite sufficiently so, not only to indicate its existence, 
but also to suggest thai it was backed by an unmeasured reserve of power. The 

-'. for what was called the "Prohibition ticket" can, in no just sense, be 
taken as ajneasure of its extent and influence. The interests <>f the people were 
dfawn away, with almost unprecedented intensity, to other issues, and uncounted 
thousands of the most determined Prohibitionists were saying, 'Not now; the 

• r the presidency is now the great issue, and for the time being the para- 
mount one.' " 

Never before in the last thirty years has there been as much liquor 
consumed in this country as to-day, ami never before has the increase 
been so rapid as during the last live years. These two facts are indis- 
putable. The past methods employed against this gigantic evil arc 
not sufficient to oope successfully with it. Have we not a right to 
say this after thirty years of trial (the Republican party, which in the 
North is the more disposed toward temperance, being in power nearly 
all this time) ? Who has the courage to assume the tremendous re- 
sponsibility of continuing the trial another thirty years? During 
these years of experiment the liquor traffic has wasted a wealth which, 
with its ordinary increase, would equal the present total valuation of 
property of all kinds in America, so that had the traffic been ended 
thirty years ago, the time the Republican party was coming to the 
front, the nation's wealth to-day would be double what it now is; and 
who will estimate the wrecked lives, the ruined homes, the wretched- 
ness here and hereafter, which have been wrought during these years 
by this deplorable traffic ! 

It is not a sufficient answer to say that the increase in the traffic 
would have been greater had not these methods been employed. That 
claim we readily admit. But if a deadly disease is eating toward 
the vitals it is not enough that the remedy employed retards the pro- 
the disease. No remedy that does not wholly check the on- 
ward march of the disease is sufficient. 

It must not be thought that the advocates of the political method 
would substitute their method for those already employed, as the 
pledge, moral suasion, gospel temperance, education, county and state 
prohibitory laws, etc. They wish to supplement these methods, not to 
set them aside. They would have those methods worked, if possible, 
a hundred-fold more enthusiastically and efficiently than ever, nor do 
they forget their indebtedness to these methods. Had they not pre- 
pared the way the political methods would not now be possible. 

The series of tables published in The, Voice- during the last few 
months leave no room for reasonable doubt that the consumption of 
liquor has greatly increased during the last thirty years, and, more 
startling still, that the rate of this increase is being accelerated year 
by year. Dr. Dorchester, in his late book,* says that since 1850 there 
has been a great increase — much greater than appears in the official 

• " The Liquor Problem In all Ages," pp. C13-15. 



16 

government figures; for the government makes no note of the vast 
expansion of distilled liquors by adulteration since the imposition of 
a heavy tax in 1S63, this tax having made the art of adulteration most 
profitable. Thirty years ago the consumption of beer was about two 
gallons per inhabitant; last year it was over ten gallons for every man, 
woman and child in the land; and at the same time there has been an 
increase per capita in the consumption, as a beverage, of distilled 
liquors (whisky, brandy, gin, etc.). 

The increase of foreigners and the drinking habits of the negroes 
are elements which help to swell this increase ; but that which remains 
to be accounted for is exceedingly large, as is easily demonstrated. 

A notable fact is that this stupendous increase in the consumption 
of liquor is not confined to America. It seems to mark this era of our 
civilization. In Berlin the ichiskey saloons are increasing threefold 
more rapidly than the population ; the beer saloons are also increasing, 
but less rapidly. So is it in Switzerland, in France, and throughout 
Europe. Beer and wine are but developing the appetite for whiskey 
and brandy. Crime of every kind is increasing with startling rapid- 
ity, and this is attributed to the great increase in the consumption of 
liquors. European statesmen are becoming profoundly alarmed. 

Every civilization has had its great mastering evil, growing upon it 
as a parasite, and in the entire past history of the world this nour- 
ished evil has destroyed the civilization that fed it, and has thrown the 
world back toward barbarism. Alcoholic mastery is the evil our pres- 
ent European and American civilization is developing with an ever-in- 
creasing rapidity; we must find the way to end it, or it will end us. 

The conservative London Times is constrained to cry out: 

"Drinking baffles us, confounds us, shames us, and mocks us at every point. 
It outwits alike the teacher, the man of business, the patriot and the legislator. 
. . . Let us do something towards staying the huge mischief which, one way 
or another, confounds us all and may — for we cannot be sure — crush and ruin us 
all." 

And says Carron Farrar, who certainly is no fanatic: 

"It has come to this, England must in this matter mend her ways; she must get 
rid of this curse and crime, or she must ultimately perish." 

These solemn words are as true of America as they are of England. 

The remedy with which the advocates of party prohibition propose 
to supplement past methods is: National Prohibition through an 
amendment to the Federal Constitution, backed by a successful 
National Prohibition Party. 

Against this poHcy many objections are presented with consummate 
skill by the Rev. Dr. Spear in his opening paper. Let us carefully 
examine these objections: 

"Whether intoxicating liquors shall be manufactured and sold in a given State 
is a question for that State to determine; it cannot be determined by Congress 
without a fundamental change in our system of government.' 



17 

No amendment to the Federal constitution can be secured except 

by the consent of three-fourths of the States, Barely, if the States 

r that the National Government can accomplish a work vitally 

important to the welfare of the whole people, and also discover that 

the States eannot accomplish this work in their individual capacity, 
the wise thing for the States to do is to have the central government, 
do this work. That is what the central government is for — to do 
that which the States cannot do independently. If the good of the 
people requires it, and the people say Yes, how is it going to change 
fundamentally a government that is /-//the people and for the people ? 
The " fundamental " idea of the American government is that the 
government is made for the people, and not the people for it. This 
objection is not a new one. Dr. Spear will remember the yeoman ser- 
vice it did thirty, forty years ago. We were told (the Doctor will re- 
member how it was dinned into our cars) that whether there shall be 
slaves orno slaves in a given State was a question forthe State to deter- 
mine; for the central government to determine it would be to change 
fundamentally our system of government. But slavery was abolished 
by the central government, and slavery is made impossible to-day in 
every State, by Federal instead of by State law, and yet our system of 
government survives. Even an amendment to the Federal constitu- 
tion has been adopted which compels Broadway stages, San Francisco 
hotels, Philadelphia theatres, and so on all through the land, to admit 
negroes ! Our system of government also stood that shock. It can- 
not be that it will now be wrenched from its foundations, if, at the 
command of three-fourths of the States, the Xational government 
brings the manufacture and importation of liquor under its control. 

This national policy, we are told, is impracticable, because it can- 
not secure the needed majority in its favor. To amend the Federal 
Constitution will take a two-thirds vote of Congress and the subsequent 
majority consent of the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. 
Dr. Spear dismisses this point with considerable emphasis: 

"He who thinks that the requisite majority can ever be persuaded to sanction 
such a change in the supreme law of the land has passed beyond the reach of 
reason, and the attempt to reason with him would be labor lost." 

That ought to settle the question. The learned writer enters the 
temple of all truth and slams the door with such ar vim as to take all 
heart out of one who thought the truth lay in quite the other 
direction. But may not such an one venture to intimate what he 
would have said had not this ipse dixit put him out of court? If 
there is anything in the objection, beyond what we have already an- 
swered, it means that it is impossible to get a majority of the people 
in three-fourths of the States to favor prohibition. The majority in 
three-fourths of the States will give us a majority of three-fourths 
of the legislatures, and with such a majority in the States, of course 



IS 

the requisite two-thirds in Congress would be secured. Surely our 
learned opponent will admit that much. So the problem resolves it- 
self to this: Is it madness to suppose that a majority of the voters 
in three -fourths of the States can be secured to the side of prohibi- 
tion ? Let us see if this expectation is without reason. In one way 
or another, and at one time or another, the people, either by direct 
vote or by a majority vote of their State legislators (who are never 
apt on questions of this kind to go ahead of the people), have voted 
in favor of prohibition : Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, 
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Indiana, Nebraska, Ne- 
vada, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota,* Kansas, Delaware, Texas and 
South Carolina, three-fourths of Georgia, nearly all of Mississippi, a 
large proportion of Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Missouri, AVest Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, New Jersey, Alabama, 
Illinois and Wisconsin. In all, nearly, if not quite, three-fourths of 
the people of the United States have already voted, at one time or 
another, for prohibition. To secure an amendment to the Federal 
Constitution we will need a majority vote in twenty-eight States. 
With a clear policy, and a union of the friends of temperance on 
this line, and the agitation which the cause is worthy of, surely it 
is not so absurd a thing as the Doctor would lead us to believe, 
to think that an enthusiasm can be awakened which will sweep the 
country from Maine to California. Look at Canada. The General 
Government has taken the question of prohibition in hand and 
submitted it to the vote of the peojue by districts. Great major- 
ities are rolling up almost everywhere. So far in but four coun- 
ties has prohibition been defeated; and there is every reason to 
believe that at no distant date the liquor traffic in Canada will be de- 
stroyed wholly by the action of the General Government. The ques- 
tion of prohibition possesses all of the elements essential to kindle an 
irresistible moral and religious enthusiasm. Unless the signs are very 
misleading, never before Avere all things so favorable for a great tem- 
perance awakening. And here it is well to bear in mind that an 
aroused public sentiment which will place prohibition in the Federal 
Constitution, will have accomplished a work that cannot be undone 
when the tide of enthusiasm is at its ebb. That wheel has a rachet 
that the liquor power will never be able to break or lift. 

A third objection is that the national movement is impracticable 
because this question cannot be pushed to the front so as to compel a 
division of parties at the whiskey line. Dr. Spear in presenting this 
objection thinks it necessary to remind party prohibitionists that a 
new party cannot succeed as a minority party; that it must get a ma- 
jority of votes before it can carry an election. Artenius Ward used 
to tell in a most amusing way, how, when he was young, a man of learn- 

* Prohibition of Spiritoua Liquors but not of Malt. 



10 

ing and dignity once said to him: " Young man, you have your future 
all before you.*' "Until then," the witty Artemus would remark in 
droll way that never failed to bring down the house, " I thought my 
future wag behind me." If it were not bo amusing it would be humil- 
iating to prohibitionists to discover that bo able a thinker and olose 
.. Dr. Spear deems it necessary to solemnly warn 
them that they must be able to carry an election before they can elect. 
The following extract^ present the Doctor's main point: 

"The majority of the people can always get all they want, through ono or tho 
other of the existing parties, by simply voting it into power. These parties are 
constantly watching public Bentiment, aud, from time to time, adopting new prin- 
ciples, or measures in accordance with its supposed demands. Their plan is not 
:.ind this sentiment or go contrary to it : and neither proposes to disband 
or commit suicide, in order to m ike room for a third party." 

"Such a party can give no legal expression to its views until it gets itself into 
power, and this it cannot do until the majority of the voters shall adopt its views; 
and when, if ever, this becomes a fact, the party will be wholly unnecessary to 
attain the result. Let public sentiment move up to the mark of Prohibition and 
there will be no difficulty in obtaining it through the existing parties." 

"They [Prohibitionists] cannot vote themselves into power until they get the 
ir opinion on their side. . . The opinion being given such a 
party is not needed." 

"If they are successful in leading tho people generally to adopt their views, 
the end they desire will be gained without organizing a third party for that pur- 
Che existing political parties, assumed to be opposed to Prohibition, will, 
npon this supposition, change their attitude; and either, if placed in power, will 
give to the principle the sanction and force of law. No new party is needed 
when public sentiment demands a prohibitory law, and, in the absence of such a 
Bentiment, no new party can secure the result." 

"The conditions npon which it can succeed entirely dispense with its necessity 
as the means of that success. These conditions being given, the movement is not 
needed; and if not given it is a failure." 

Over and over again with wonderful tact this argument is brought 
to view: a new party cannot come to the front until it secures a con- 
trolling public sentiment on its side; but the very existence of this 
sentiment will render the party unnecessary, for one of the existing 
parties will be quick to adopt as its own the principle demanded. 
lid a juggler handle his balls with more consummate skill than 
is accomplished dialectician this argument all through his 
paper. The advocate of political prohibition is tossed from one horn 
of the dilemma to the other with a bewildering rapidity. 

The argument is plausible, but not sound: 

1. It is true only in a degree, that : " The way a people vote tells 
the story as to what they think." It tells the story rather of what the 
party manipulators wish. In the argument no account is made of 
those tremendous elements of the strength of a party: party machin- 
ery, party spirit, party prejudice and party inertia. Xine in ten of 
Democrats would vote for the Democratic party if its principles were 
reversed; and the same is true, in a less degree, of Republicans. After a 



20 

party lias been in existence for some years the attachment of its ad- 
herents, could this attachment be resolved into its component parts, 
would be expressed by something like the following formula: 

Party machinery and "spoils" 3 parts; party spirit and prejudice a parts; 
party inertia 4 parts; principle 1 part. 

To pit a principle against parties and leave the party organizations 
untouched, as Dr. Spear would have us do, would be to give the op- 
posing principle the tremendous advantages of party machinery, and 
of the spirit, prejudice and the inertia of party. This is precisely what 
the friends of Prohibition have been doing for these many years, and 
the result is what we have seen. 

This was the difficulty which the anti-slavery men encountered in 
the 'fifties. 

Horace Greeley* in 1854 wrote: 

"It has long been our belief that a thorough dispersion of parties, with an 
obliteration and disuse of all their machinery, watchwords and discipline, as 
often as once in twelve years, if not at the close of each Presidential contest, 
would be a public blessing. We have witnessed such baleful results of blind 
partisan bigotry — of unreasoning devotion to this or that party standard because 
of the name thereon inscribed— of dishonest practising on this fanaticism, in the 
confident belief that the great body of the party will swallow anything that bears 
the approved label— that we should be perplexed, if required to say whether 
party spirit has done more good or evil." 

It is exceedingly instructive to remember that although public sen- 
timent was becoming in the North overwhelmingly anti-slavery, yet up 
to the very breaking of the old parties in the 'fifties these parties became 
more and more pro-slavery. They did not reflect at all the growing 
sentiment. On the contrary, with their expiring energy, they enacted 
the most obnoxious of all pro-slavery measures, as the Fugitive Slave 
Law, the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and made possible the 
Dred Scott Decision. Again an ounce of fact is worth a ton of logic. 
The anti-slavery principle had no chance to be heard until the Whig 
party (the party " more likely to sympathize with " abolition) was 
smashed, and party spirit and machinery got out of the way. 

But we are told by Dr. Spear: 

"The creating of a new political party has never succeeded, even once, in the 
whole history of this government. The Republican party of to-day is not an ex- 
ample of such creation. This party, formally organized in 1856, was not a new 
party contending for the mastery against two other parties in the field, and finally 
conquering both, but was simply the old Whig party under a new name, with ele- 
ments of strength derived from the Liberty party and also the Democratic party, 
while some of the Whig elements, especially in the Southern States, went into 
the latter party. The Whig party gave place to the Republican party and was 
merged into it, and, with added elements, took a new name. Such are the facts 
in the case." 

"What besides these four elements constitutes a party — (l) name, (2) 
party machinery, (3) dominating principle, (4) membership ? The 

* N. T. Tribune, July 18, 1854. 



21 

Republican party had a new name, brand now party machinery, and, 
for its dominating principle, hostility to slavery, denouncing it as a 
'• relic of barbarism," while the Whig party was pro-slavery. As to 
membership, in 1840 the Whig party polled a majority of all votes 
east in the Southern States. There was its great Strength, under the 
leadership of Henry Clay. In I860 the Republican party hail prac- 
tically no vote in the South. The Doctor must admit the " some " to 
whom he refers was quite large in the South. In 1852, in the North, 
the Whig party polled 1,013,864 votes; the Republican party in I860 
polled, in the North, 1,866,463. Where did this vast increase come 
from? Multitudes of Whigs in the North went into the Democratic 
party, and multitudes of Democrats, following the lead of sueh men 
as Salmon 1'. Chase, went into the Republican party. With name, 
party machinery, dominating principle and membership changed, 
surely the Republican party was a new party. If it was the old Whig 
party, it must have been after the manner the revolutionary gun of 
the old hero was the same old gun, although it had a new barrel, new 
breech, new stock, ramrod and hammer. " Well," persisted the old 
hero, '• the touch-hole is the same.'' 

Let the National Prohibition party bo as much of a new party as 
was the Republican, and its advocates need ask for no more. Let it 
have a name different from either of the old parties; for its dominat- 
ing principle, hostility to the liquor traffic; new party machinery; and 
then give it as large a proportion of the intelligent voters of the South 
as left the Whig party and went into the Democratic party — that is, 
a majority of the whole Southern vote — and let there be an abandon- 
ment of the old parties for the new in the North equal to what there 
Was of the Whig and Democratic parties for the new Republican party, 
and then give it, to make the parallel complete, victory in 1888, as had 
the Republican party in 1800 — give it all this, and then Prohibitionists 
■will not be very apt to care if some learned successor to the Rev. Dr. 
Spear in 1015 writes, in a Symposium to The Homiletic Review of 
that date, to prove that the National Prohibition party ', which, then, 
for a quarter of a century had been in control of the Government, was 
>."' a new party; that a new party "has never succeeded even once," 
and from the very nature of the case cannot succeed. Horace Greeley 
declared that the " Whig party was not only defeated, but over- 
whelmed;" and Smalley, in his history of the Republican party, speak- 
ing of the defeat in 1852, says " the disaster to the Whigs was so 
overwhelming that it killed their party." Dr. Spear says the Whig 
party simply " took a new name." The facts are with Greeley and 
Smalley. 

A_-ain: 

"Prohibition, ns a third pr\r'y movement, should not, at the very utmost, pass 
bevond the SDhere of State politics." 



22 

The aim is to make prohibition a, first party movement. A political 
party which " should not, at the very utmost, pass beyond the sphere 
of State politics " is an absurdity. The creating of such a party " has 
never succeeded even once in the whole history of the government " — 
and for obvious reasons. 

It is asked, why not adopt " the strategy of what is called the rum 
power " — the Prohibitionists, instead of forming an independent party, 
to ally themselves with the party (in the North the Republican) " that 
is most likely to sympathize with their views ? " Much of what I 
have said already will apply in answer to this question. This has been 
the policy of Prohibitionists for thirty years, and it has signally failed, 
and must continually fail. There is to-day less territory in the North 
imder prohibition than when the Republican party came into power. 
In 1863, the first year of the Internal Revenue tax, 62,000,000 of 
gallons of beer were consumed; in '84 this amount had increased to 
the enormous quantity of 588,000,000; during the same time the use 
of whiskey as a beverage greatly increased per capita. True the Re- 
publican party submitted Prohibition to a popular vote in Iowa and 
Kansas; it is also true that the same party repealed prohibition in 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Michigan. Gen. Neal 
Dow reveals the reason for this in his recent letter, in which he 
announced his intention of hereafter identifying himself with the 
Prohibition party. He .says that, although the people in Maine last 
fall voted three to one in favor of prohibition, the Republican party 
fears to enforce the law because of the effect this enforcement will 
have on the whiskey vote in doubtful Republican States. History 
repeats itself. Salmon P. Chase, in a speech in Oberlin, in 1850, said: 

" You askme why we need an Abolition party; is not the Whig party sufficiently 
abolition? The "Whig party can't oppose slavery, because that party needs the 
votes of the border States in order to carry elections." 

Besides, it is impossible to rally Prohibitionists, North and South, 
under either the Republican or Democratic banner. 

A movement of this kind, we are reminded, is likely to "help the 
party least favorable to the temperance cause ; that it so resulted last 
fall. This evil is temporary, and is unavoidable in any movement to 
bring to the front a new party. Dr. Spear will call to mind that this 
result followed the Liberty party and probably defeated Clay in '44. 
And yet, if there had been no Liberty party there would be to-day 
no Republican party. Can the Doctor suggest to Prohibitionists a 
solution of this problem: How may a man work into a new build- 
ing the materials of his old building, and occupy the old one until the 
new one is complete ? TJie JV. Y. Independent, a paper with which Dr. 
Spear is connected, contained, last fall, in defence of the attitude of 
Prohibitionists, the following, which seems to be a very pat answer to 
the Doctor's objection: " You cannot make an omelet without break- 



s 

ing Bome eggs." The whole question is, is the omelet worth t] 
breaking ? 

The Doctor farther arges : 

d iition of public sentiment, in the several States, rendering the amend- 
ment of the Federal Constitution possible, would entirely raperoede the neoea- 
sity for the party, bo for as these States are oonoerned, sinoe tbo end could and 
would be gained by State notion." 

The need o( a Prohibition party is not so much to secure the 
matt of prohibitory laws (a comparatively easy task), but to secure 
their enforcement. Besides, M these States " would not be protected 
against importation from a non-prohibition State. If all the States in 
the Union save one were to adopt State prohibitory laws, in that one 
State sufficient liquor could be manufactured to supply all of the 
States, and no State could prevent its shipment across its borders. If 
prohibition could be secured in all the States by separate State action 
(certainly a much more difficult task than amending the Federal Con- 
stitution), the liquor men by concentrating their power on a single 
small State would be able easily to compromise Prohibition in all the 
States. This defect can be met only by Federal action. 

Finally, it is objected that the Prohibition party has but a single 
principle. The answer is, this country settles but one great question 
at a time. This question becomes for the time being the controlling 
one, other questions taking subordinate places in the platform of the op- 
posing parties, and having little to do with the determination of voters. 
mewhat surprising that this should occur as an objection to so 
staunch a Republican as the Rev. Dr. Spear, for, over and over 
again, his own party, in its early history, had to meet it. He will per- 
mit me to quote in answer from the celebrated Rochester speech of 
"William II. Seward in 1858: 

'The secret of tbo Eepnblican party's assured success lies in tbe very char- 
acteristic which, in tbe mouth of scoffers, constitutes its great and lasting im- 
becility and reproach. It lies in tbe fact tbat it is a party of one idea; but 
that idea is a noble one, an idea that fills and expands all generous souls." 

To pnsh to the front a national party which has prohibition as its 
dominating issue, and to secure a prohibitory amendment to the Fed- 
eral constitution, we are reminded, will j)rove a herculean task. We 
believe the ta>k a wholly practicable one. But what though it proves 
herculean ? The good results of the combined labors of Hercules 
Merc as a drop to the ocean compared with what would follow the 
suppression of the liquor traffic. The Christian heroism of this age 
and nation is capable of more than a herculean effort. 



txwt author*. The e«say m to this book 1* a shrewd Taluatlon of a«orgo Eliot's 

poetical grains. ■•< much substance in them as ton 

■ 

interchanging aff I 

•i a great many of t ln< average pulpit a<r: • 01,1 

Rome an N .t-.,form a yroup of subjects apon which Miss 

is bost ,»vd much thought; aud her treatment of them, while it may provoke dissent from 

some sour-oa. must bo admi : and impressive. The wholo effect of the volume If to en-ate 

'a-.it a^aiu from a lady o speaks so frankly and well. Funk & W agnails havo published 

these essay* in a dainty form." 

m: says: 
:il has a stylo which may fairly bo oallod her own and though it la plainly compoaito. 
Impassion ..' 1 ..u individualism which frees hex from the suspicion of Imitation. 

1 -rid, but lucid. It has also much nervous fore*. and hex thought! 
are expr> ss«*l In appropriate language tad with graceful aaa*. In short aht writes pleasantly, clearly, and 
with a profusion of ornamentation which adds color and light to her oasays. Few who read will l>o 
weaned by them." 

LOUISVILLE, says: 
"This lady is a intan Of convictions and intellect. ■ ntative American 

workiug woman. 1 - 10 practical employments and studies oonfc -niporary with 

the wonderful progress made by the women Of the Nineteenth century toward emancipation. Though a 
doctrinair is no amateur, and precisely at that point where lu-r mind and character may 

be said to hare re* .1 listened from the school room to tho White House. 

She finds herself by magic, as it were, taken out of the obscurity of an earnest, but comparatively voice- 
less pursuit of duty and belief, and given a commanding eminence and conspicuousuess. Sho Iosbb no 
time In im. rtunity thus offered. With a courage which can havo been born only of the 

t'aith ( for what need bos she to go further if glory or vanity whisper their allurements into her 
ear) she proposes to convert the K\ 1 it form, and to make tho nation her 

eight as she is brave, and from tho glimpses we havo had of her work, wo do not believe 
that she, or any one. will have cause to ivgret that she cannot bo content with the attained, but as far 
as the general public is ad vised, the unearned position of tho first lady of the land. Her refusal to accept 
this great social distinction as the ultima thule of feniino ambition gives her a claim to tho homage of 
• ry son, and adds a new dignity to womanhood. To be sure, her book must stand or fall by its 
- - may bo, all honor to the Christian heart which called it into being, and the 
plucky spirit which gives it to the world." 

THE NEW YORK HERALD says : 

"This is a book which, from the high position occupied by its author, will naturally excite curiosity 
and attention. It is a very creditable production, indeed. Miss Cleveland's stylo is attractive. She is a 
lady of much culture and evidently of wide reading. . . . Tho book is printed well, and is launched 
In a manner highly creditable to the publishers." 

THE NEW YORK MORNING JOURNAL says : 

00k of recent times has created such wide-spread Interest and comment In advance of its pub- 
lication as that of Miss Rose Elizabeth Cleveland's maiden venture in the field of literature. The author 
is s remarkably bright woman, gifted with a lively imagination and originality of thought and expres- 
sion." 
JOAQUIN MILLER says : 

" I congratulate the publishers, tho conntry and Miss Cleveland. This is tho best and bravest ex- 
pression for poetry and religion together that America has yet produced." 

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE says : 

"Miss Cleveland is a highly educated, thoughtful woman, just a little bit of an esprit fort, but not in 
the least a blue-stocking. Her book is suro to be very interesting. Miss Cleveland is a typo of robust 
womanhood, with feelings akin to those of the rest of her countrywomen. Sho has a broad, 
generous heart." 

1 ITNK.L says : 
" Miss Cleveland belongs to the literati. Her exceeding great earnestness alono will secure for tho 
book the widest possible circulation." 

THE ALL I .ING JOURNAL says : 

" In all frankness we say that an examination of Miss Cleveland's book convinces us of what we at 
first assume. 1 : that she is a woman of talent and much practical sense; that sho has worked hard on her 
essays and has grasped a good opportunity of introducing them to the public, under the most favorable 
Circumat: 

FUNK & WAGNALLS,Publishers, 10 and 12 Dey St., New York. 



THE VOICE." 



Men who Dispute its Political Views, Think it Invaluable as a 
Temperance Educator. 



Published every Thursday. Sample copy, 3 cents [2d.]; per Year, $1.00 [4s.] 

Hon. SEAL DOW gays : 

We have had no such temperance paper before in 
all the years of work for the temperance cause. 
Hon. Neal Dow. 



Dr. CHARLES F. DEEMS says ! 

The Voice is the ablest temperance paper in 
America. Chables F Deems, D.D., LL.D. 

Pies. J. H. SEEL YE says: 

The Voice is invaluable for the proper under- 
standing of the current temperance movement. 
3. H. Seelye, D.D., Pres. Amherst College. 

Ex-Pres. MARK HOPKINS' Testimony: 

Though I do not believe in the political views 
advocated in The Voice, yet I have subscribed for 
it and wish it success, because I believe in the 
freest discussion, and I regard it as an earnest and 
able advocate of the temperance cause. 

Mark Hopkins. 

Williams College, June 11, 1885. 

Judge NOAH DAVIS bears testimony to 
its great merits : 

I have been a reader of The Voice for many 
months, and though I do not concur in the wisdom 
of the political views it advocates, I wish to bear 
testimony to its great merits as a temperance 
newspaper. It is conducted with remarkable 
energy and ability, and its weekly collations of 
statistical information bearing upon the evils of 
intemperance as they affect the morality, the eco- 
nomics, and the general well-being of society, have 
never been surpassed. 

You are deserving of great credit for the service 
The Voioe renders to the general cause of temper- 
ance. Noah Davis. 

New York City, June 12. 

Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT, says: 

The Voice is a very valuable mine of informa- 
tion. Lyman Abbott, D.D. 
Editor Cliri&tian Union. 
Cornwall-on-Hudson, April 28, 1885. 

Dr. DANIEL CURRY'S Estimate : 

The Voice is a thorough outspoken advocate 
of Prohibition. It is also in favor of political ac- 
tion for accomplishing its work, independent of 
existing parties, respecting those points temper- 
ance advocates are divided. It is well that both 
sides should be heard, and I know of no better au- 
thority for the Third Party than The Voice. 
Daniel Cubby, D.D., Ed. Methodist Review. 

New York, June 12, 1885. 
Dr. LEONARD BACON says : 

I recognize the vigor with which The Voice is 
conducted, and the many indications of a spirit of 
fairness, which add value to its sentiments. 

Leonabd W. Bacon, D.D. 

Philadelphia, June 11, 1885. 



AXEL GUSTAFSOiV'S Hearty Estimate: 

[Gustafson is the author of that greatest of tem- 
perance books " The Foundation of Death."] 

Last night I received your campaign circular, and 
there saw that you had inserted my estimate of 
The Voice. At the time I wrote that estimate it 
was quite true, but is so no longer, for The Voice 
is not now on '* the way to become "—it is the lead- 
ing temperance journal of the world. I have now 
studied over four thousand books and pamphlets, 
in some eight languages, and have read, more or 
less faithfully, most of the periodical literature of 
the past on this subject (the drink question), and 
as I follow it up by examining the current publi- 
cations on it in six languages, I cannot help feeling 
that I am warranted in pronouncing authorita- 
tively upon this question, and it is upon these 
grounds that I feel conscientiously compelled to 
declare that The Voice is by far the ablest agitator 
of the drink question that has ever been pub- 
lished. I have written this to you because it is 
your due, and I am glad to pay such dues. Even 
during the fete at Gazeley Court I spoke my mind 
about The Voice to scores of people of influence, 
just as I have spoken it here, and gave the address 
of your journal to a great number. 

Axel Gustafson. 

London, England, July 27. 

JOSEPH COOK says : 

The Voice is decisive and incisive. 

Joseph Cook. 
Boston, Mass, Aug. 15, 1885. 

Dr. J. M. LUDLOW'S hearty words : 

I most heartily appreciate The Voice for the 
courage, intellectual vigor, and practical tact with 
which it is edited and managed. However one 
may differ with you regarding Prohibition, the en- 
tire community is indebted to you for the fair and 
manly way in which you advocate it. The tem- 
perance ammunition supplied by the statistics and 
arguments which appear in its columns is invalu- 
able to every work in the cause. 

James M. Ludlow, D.D. 

Brooklyn, June 12, 1885. 

GEORG E WILLIAM CURTIS says : 

The Voice is a well edited temperance journal, 
advocating vigorously the principles of the Prohi- 
bition party, and is well supplied with temperance 
statistics. Geokoe William Cubits, 

Editor Harper's Weekly. 

New Brighton, N. Y., June 13, 1885. 

Dr. HOWARD CROSBY'S wish: 

While I am neither a Prohibitionist nor a total 
abstinence man, I am glad The Voice speaks out 
against the enormities of the liquor traffic, and I 
.wish it God-speed. Howabd Cbosby. 

New York, June 11, 1885. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS A 

INIIUliI 11.111 III II ' 
027 279 726 21 




